So, go ahead and remember the bad stuff. I want you to. But remember the good stuff too. That's all I'm saying.

If we want to keep combing through the past we can. Or we can look forward to how things can be better.

I've studied the Catholic-Jewish relationship/history. The Catholic Church dominates Christianity, particularly in Western Europe and was pretty much unchallenged as a religion in that region until the Reformation. From 325 to 1517, to be Christian in Europe meant you were Catholic, there were other sects and ideas to be sure, but none of them had the cultural impact the Catholic Church did. Currently, the Catholic Church has over 1 billion members, making up half of all christians. The other half is divided amongst numerous sects, making Catholicism the largest portion of christians. If you want to detail the good/bad, you must account for the good/bad of the largest portion of christians in the world/history.

The primary fact that was always used to justify persecution of the Jews was the fact that they had killed Jesus. Passion Plays is a fairly obvious example of how the event of his death was dramatized and the Jews painted as the killers. It wasn't until the Second Vatican (1962-65) that the Catholic Church repudiated this idea.

In 1198, as serfdom was becoming less common in France, the Jews were recalled by the king (have previously expelled them from France and confiscated all their property in 1182). They were allowed to operate money-lending businesses under the direction of the king, who established the interest rate and required a seal to be affixed to all deeds. The seal had to be paid for and was paid by the Jews. Serfs at that time could appeal their treatment by going to the Church, which would represent them in the courts. No one was willing to represent the Jews. Over the course of the next 40 years, Louis VIII and IX each passed edicts releasing people from their obligation of paying interest on any loans from Jews.

In 1251, Louis IX was held captive during his crusade. In response, a peasant movement called the Shepherd's Crusade started up. The peasants organized so that they could march to Egypt and free him. They never made it out of France and mostly caused a lot of trouble. One of the primary targets of their attacks were the Jews.

I'm willing to keep going over this accounting of good/bad if we want. Though someone is going to have to come up with the number of good works that equal the murder of a single human.

But many people think that anything coming out of THEIR religion has to be good.

There are many people who think that science' s+*+ never stinks. Then again, the people who actually know what the hell they're talking about know better. In the same way, there are lots of lemmings who think that nothing coming out of their religion is bad. Then again, those who actually know what the hell they're talking about know better - just look at the constant stream of reform.

Don't judge any social institution by the half of the population that's below average intelligence and who happen to label themselves as believers in that institution.

Quote:

.. ok i think that one needs a little explanation.

Architecture is based on heuristics - lessons learned from the past - and on instinct. Its actually impossible to approach it logically in the formal sense of the word since the number of nodes and, more importantly, the number of their edges gets out of hand extremely quickly. Yes, I took graduate classes in systems architecture from some of the top people in the field.

Quote:

Two thousand years later to get a hamburger. It may change with the times but it doesn't change fast enough.

Let the bread rise already!

Well, you've got me there! No one even invented a hamburger until 1916. That MUST have been religion's fault. I mean, everything else is, right?

Don't judge any social institution by the half of the population that's below average intelligence and who happen to label themselves as believers in that institution.

I hope I misread this, but did you just refer to the Catholic half of Christianity as the below average intelligence half or are you replying to a post that wasn't talking about the Catholic half and I just misinterpreted?

Don't judge any social institution by the half of the population that's below average intelligence and who happen to label themselves as believers in that institution.

I hope I misread this, but did you just refer to the Catholic half of Christianity as the below average intelligence half or are you replying to a post that wasn't talking about the Catholic half and I just misinterpreted?

I was referring to those people who believe that anything that comes out of their religion is good.

To the extent that that statement applies to Catholics (and only to that extent), I was referring to Catholics.

If someone was following the rules of architecture, and those rules prescribed a way to make a building that was bad. Yes, yes I would.

Tell me what you think the rules of religion are. NOT the rules of A religion, but the rules of religion itself.

ciretose wrote:

But since architecture is, by design, self correcting for errors, it isn't an issue.

So is religion. Or are you seriously going to argue that it isn't? When a religion used to believe that a certain group of people were inherently inferior (ie. the Ham hypothesis), but no longer does is that not self correcting?

If someone was following the rules of architecture, and those rules prescribed a way to make a building that was bad. Yes, yes I would.

Tell me what you think the rules of religion are. NOT the rules of A religion, but the rules of religion itself.

ciretose wrote:

But since architecture is, by design, self correcting for errors, it isn't an issue.

So is religion. Or are you seriously going to argue that it isn't? When a religion used to believe that a certain group of people were inherently inferior (ie. the Ham hypothesis), but no longer does is that not self correcting?

The problem with religion is it's lack of testablity. It can't self correct when people no longer need to avoid pork because of the lack of refrigeration.

By definition, faith isn't testable by the one who give it. You believe something on faith, not reason. That is why it is faith rather than science.

People slowly renouncing silly doctrine over time isn't correction, it's reason overcoming faith. What is reasonable now was heresy not that long ago, and still is if you follow the actual doctrines to the letter.

There's a lot of stuff that we value that isn't testable. Law, for example, seems to be more about opinion and values then anything testable. Yet, it does self correct.

This notion that faith has no value because it isn't science is ridiculous unless you're willing to apply the same standard to everything else we value that isn't science (art, architecture, history, economics, social services, etc.)

There's a lot of stuff that we value that isn't testable. Law, for example, seems to be more about opinion and values then anything testable. Yet, it does self correct.

This notion that faith has no value because it isn't science is ridiculous unless you're willing to apply the same standard to everything else we value that isn't science (art, architecture, history, economics, social services, etc.)

I do apply those same standards to all of those things, with the possible exception of Art, which is subjective by it's nature.

All of those things are subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcomes based on evidence. Law is constantly reviewed and re-written to be more applicable to need.

All of those things are subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcomes based on evidence. Law is constantly reviewed and re-written to be more applicable to need.

This is the difference.

Religion is subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcome. You may not believe it and I don't know how to convince you, but it is.

It becomes quite obvious when ministers debate how to interpret scripture that it is subject to peer review, when churches get concerned with social issues and the church's role in them that it is subject to expectation of outcome, and when church members discuss and debate the minister's lesson after church over a meal that it is subject to assessment.

How much time have you spent in church - in different churches - in actual participant/observation? If the none of the multiple churches you attended (and, by 'attend', I don't mean once or twice) had ministers debating over how to interpret scripture, debating over the church's role in social issues, debating over the lesson for the day, then your experience is an extreme statistical outlier considering how many people I know who have had experiences different from yours. I'm not saying that your experiences aren't legitimate. I grew up in a very hierarchical power freak of a church, so I know they exist. But, they aren't the majority.

All of those things are subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcomes based on evidence. Law is constantly reviewed and re-written to be more applicable to need.

This is the difference.

Religion is subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcome. You may not believe it and I don't know how to convince you, but it is.

It becomes quite obvious when ministers debate how to interpret scripture that it is subject to peer review, when churches get concerned with social issues and the church's role in them that it is subject to expectation of outcome, and when church members discuss and debate the minister's lesson after church over a meal that it is subject to assessment

Tell me how a peer review panel would test, say, that heaven existed. Not whether the bible says it does, which is INTERPRETATION, not testing.

It doesn't. It's not testable. It isn't peer reviewed. Although it slowly changes, it still holds to silly antiquated notions, like the existence of a god.

All of those things are subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcomes based on evidence. Law is constantly reviewed and re-written to be more applicable to need.

This is the difference.

Religion is subject to peer review, assessment, and expectations of outcome. You may not believe it and I don't know how to convince you, but it is.

It becomes quite obvious when ministers debate how to interpret scripture that it is subject to peer review, when churches get concerned with social issues and the church's role in them that it is subject to expectation of outcome, and when church members discuss and debate the minister's lesson after church over a meal that it is subject to assessment

Tell me how a peer review panel would test, say, that heaven existed. Not whether the bible says it does, which is INTERPRETATION, not testing.

It doesn't. It's not testable. It isn't peer reviewed. Although it slowly changes, it still holds to silly antiquated notions, like the existence of a god.

What does "test" mean? "Test" in the sense that a law is tested? How do we test law? "Test" in the sense that a lesson learned from history is tested? How do we do that? You keep trying to force religion into the role of science. You will never understand religion as long as you do that.

What does "test" mean? "Test" in the sense that a law is tested? How do we test law? "Test" in the sense that a lesson learned from history is tested? How do we do that? You keep trying to force religion into the role of science. You will never understand religion as long as you do that.

Again. Because I DISAGREE with you about the role that religion plays, should play, has played, and its relative use to things like science and reason, I clearly am just an imbecile.

I'm done here. I'm sure you won't miss me, but I refuse to be talked down to any longer.

What does "test" mean? "Test" in the sense that a law is tested? How do we test law? "Test" in the sense that a lesson learned from history is tested? How do we do that? You keep trying to force religion into the role of science. You will never understand religion as long as you do that.

Again. Because I DISAGREE with you about the role that religion plays, should play, has played, and its relative use to things like science and reason, I clearly am just an imbecile.

I'm done here. I'm sure you won't miss me, but I refuse to be talked down to any longer.

I NEVER said you were an imbecile. However, you do seem stuck in a tightly narrow way of thinking. That happens to even the smartest people. You're only an imbecile if you decide to stay stuck in that tightly narrow way of thinking (and, by 'tightly narrow', I mean trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science).

I NEVER said you were an imbecile. However, you do seem stuck in a tightly narrow way of thinking. That happens to even the smartest people. You're only an imbecile if you decide to stay stuck in that tightly narrow way of thinking (and, by 'tightly narrow', I mean trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science).

So he's not a moron for disagreeing with you he's only a moron if he keeps disagreeing with you...

You have a highly overvalued opinion of the quality of your arguments. Most of them rely on your own alleged expertise and the superior method of your thinking over that of anyone else.

I NEVER said you were an imbecile. However, you do seem stuck in a tightly narrow way of thinking. That happens to even the smartest people. You're only an imbecile if you decide to stay stuck in that tightly narrow way of thinking (and, by 'tightly narrow', I mean trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science).

So he's not a moron for disagreeing with you he's only a moron if he keeps disagreeing with you...

You have a highly overvalued opinion of the quality of your arguments. Most of them rely on your own alleged expertise and the superior method of your thinking over that of anyone else.

Show. Don't tell.

He has argued that Architecture and law aren't any more testable and adaptable than religion.

The test of architecture is if the building stands. If it doesn't they change the way they do it by questioning assumptions and re-engineering.

The test of law varies from system of government, with mechanisms varying from elections, judicial review, to the basic stability of government. If a law doesn't work, it will be re-written.

The test of religion is...exactly. The word of "God" isn't subject to judicial review. A few holocausts are chalked up to bad interpretation, not failure in design...

This whole line of arguments is like one of those "Checkmate Atheists" posters.

I NEVER said you were an imbecile. However, you do seem stuck in a tightly narrow way of thinking. That happens to even the smartest people. You're only an imbecile if you decide to stay stuck in that tightly narrow way of thinking (and, by 'tightly narrow', I mean trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science).

So he's not a moron for disagreeing with you he's only a moron if he keeps disagreeing with you...

You have a highly overvalued opinion of the quality of your arguments. Most of them rely on your own alleged expertise and the superior method of your thinking over that of anyone else.

Show. Don't tell.

No,not if he keeps disagreeing with me. If he keeps trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science. If, on the other hand, he treats religion as the separate social institution that it is (as I've repeatedly pointed out, there are many soclal institutions that have nothing to do with science, yet, we value - science is not the ultimate authority on what is useful) and still finds religion lacking, even when measured by the criteria that are actually relevant to it, then that's something else entirely.

I NEVER said you were an imbecile. However, you do seem stuck in a tightly narrow way of thinking. That happens to even the smartest people. You're only an imbecile if you decide to stay stuck in that tightly narrow way of thinking (and, by 'tightly narrow', I mean trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science).

So he's not a moron for disagreeing with you he's only a moron if he keeps disagreeing with you...

You have a highly overvalued opinion of the quality of your arguments. Most of them rely on your own alleged expertise and the superior method of your thinking over that of anyone else.

Show. Don't tell.

He has argued that Architecture and law aren't any more testable and adaptable than religion.

The test of architecture is if the building stands. If it doesn't they change the way they do it by questioning assumptions and re-engineering.

The test of law varies from system of government, with mechanisms varying from elections, judicial review, to the basic stability of government. If a law doesn't work, it will be re-written.

The test of religion is...exactly. The word of "God" isn't subject to judicial review. A few holocausts are chalked up to bad interpretation, not failure in design...

This whole line of arguments is like one of those "Checkmate Atheists" posters.

A bad building is chalked up to bad interpretation of the heuristics of architecture. The entire discipline of architecture isn't seen as faulty because someone made a bad building. Yet, you want to condemn the entire discipline of religion (not just A religion) because a religion went in a bad direction.

Even though religion has changed, learned and improved, in response to those bad things.

If I learn that the sensation of someone sitting on my bed in the dark as I fall asleep is actually a muscle spasm caused by final releases of calories translated to involuntary movement and misinterpreted by my synaptically less-active near-REM brain;

and that the fairy-like flutter against my arm while weeding in the garden in spring is just thermally-reactive dandelion fluff and latent static, and the coincidental simultaneous release of the sheets from the drying line merely because I failed to secure two of the pins;

and that the to-him-very-real personalities John Nash communicated with were actually delusions born of paranoid-schizophrenia;

why would I choose to believe that a guardian angel/demonic visitor stays with me at night; that fairies live in my back garden; or that Moses, after herding all day in the hot desert sun, spoke with God in the form of a shrubbery (probably set aflame by heat lightening, if it happened at all, translations of Sinai being so poor and young copyists so tired)?

Science informs us on the workings of the universe.

Perhaps it's the square peg of religion that can no longer fit in the round hole of reality.

Consider racists. Now, my dictionary defines a 'racist' as "a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to another". Yet, science tells me that there's no such thing as "human races". If there's no such thing as "human races", then there can be, -by definition-, no such thing as a racist.

Yet, racists exists.

This paradox is easy to understand once you realize that science is not the final arbiter of what is real.

Some symbols take on a meaning so deep that they inform and shape a person's behavior and take on a reality even when science tells you that there's nothing there.

Now, if it works for bad behaviors like racism, why not use it for good behaviors like honesty, courage, forgiveness, love, etc.?

But that's not easy. Life conspires against us and its easy to get full of hate and anger. I know I certainly had (and, to be honest, still have) a lot of hate and anger based on the cult I grew up in. So, why don't we have people provide one another support to reinforce these positive symbols so that we can motivate and encourage each other to live better lives?

We're going to need a word for this social institution. How about 'religion'?

No,not if he keeps disagreeing with me. If he keeps trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science.

religion isn't a peg. Its a full on set of Ikea furniture. Some of the pegs are square, some of them are round.

The square holes are the "is" questions, which like it or not religion has. IS there a god/spirits ? Is karma true. Is attachment the cause of all suffering? These are all things where the best tool we have to come up with an answer is science.

You're treating religion as if ALL it does is answer ought questions. A religion, almost by definitioni, has the ought answer tied up with the is question. Why OUGHT you be a good person? Because God tells you so. Because if you don't you'll go to hell. This requires that god exists.

Quote:

If, on the other hand, he treats religion as the separate social institution that it is (as I've repeatedly pointed out, there are many soclal institutions that have nothing to do with science, yet, we value - science is not the ultimate authority on what is useful) and still finds religion lacking, even when measured by the criteria that are actually relevant to it, then that's something else entirely.

I don't think that religion holds up very well on this front either. There are plenty of social institutions that don't come with ideas influenced by a harsh, brutal world 4,000 years ago. Its hard to find a social institution that can act with the complete lack of accountability that enables tragedies like what happened to you.

Religion doesn't have to do "as well as" the secular world. It NEEDS to do better. It needs to do better because its claiming to BE better. If it doesn't live up to the hype (and it doesn't) it deserves every bit of scorn people can muster.

No,not if he keeps disagreeing with me. If he keeps trying to squeeze the round peg of religion into the square hole of science.

religion isn't a peg. Its a full on set of Ikea furniture. Some of the pegs are square, some of them are round.

The square holes are the "is" questions, which like it or not religion has. IS there a god/spirits ? Is karma true. Is attachment the cause of all suffering? These are all things where the best tool we have to come up with an answer is science.

You're treating religion as if ALL it does is answer ought questions. A religion, almost by definitioni, has the ought answer tied up with the is question. Why OUGHT you be a good person? Because God tells you so. Because if you don't you'll go to hell. This requires that god exists.

I find your post funny because just a few days ago, a highly regarded minister told me that when science and religion are in conflict, he goes with science because religion is about the 'ought' questions.

I don't know where you got your training in theology, but I'm going to assume that he knows a bit more about it than you do.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

If, on the other hand, he treats religion as the separate social institution that it is (as I've repeatedly pointed out, there are many soclal institutions that have nothing to do with science, yet, we value - science is not the ultimate authority on what is useful) and still finds religion lacking, even when measured by the criteria that are actually relevant to it, then that's something else entirely.

I don't think that religion holds up very well on this front either. There are plenty of social institutions that don't come with ideas influenced by a harsh, brutal world 4,000 years ago. Its hard to find a social institution that can act with the complete lack of accountability that enables tragedies like what happened to you.

Religion doesn't have to do "as well as" the secular world. It NEEDS to do better. It needs to do better because its claiming to BE better. If it doesn't live up to the hype (and it doesn't) it deserves every bit of scorn people can muster.

You act like no religion has changed in 4000 years. However, they have - significantly.

Consider racists. Now, my dictionary defines a 'racist' as "a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to another". Yet, science tells me that there's no such thing as "human races". If there's no such thing as "human races", then there can be, -by definition-, no such thing as a racist.

Yet, racists exists.

This paradox is easy to understand once you realize that science is not the final arbiter of what is real.

Some symbols take on a meaning so deep that they inform and shape a person's behavior and take on a reality even when science tells you that there's nothing there.

Now, if it works for bad behaviors like racism, why not use it for good behaviors like honesty, courage, forgiveness, love, etc.?

But that's not easy. Life conspires against us and its easy to get full of hate and anger. I know I certainly had (and, to be honest, still have) a lot of hate and anger based on the cult I grew up in. So, why don't we have people provide one another support to reinforce these positive symbols so that we can motivate and encourage each other to live better lives?

We're going to need a word for this social institution. How about 'religion'?

I'm scratching my head here. You and I both know that science says no such thing about the word race (where you imply that since there's no scientifically termed 'the human race'--it's a misnomer--then, according to science, there's no such thing as racism). Modern anthropology tends to use the term population vice race, and humans are a species, homo sapiens sapiens.

I say we take a meaningful symbol like a mother-and-child and use it to promote love and caring, because those two values seem hard-wired in the species at the genetic level (between a mother and her offspring) and apply it under a humanist banner. I also say that if we promote individual self-worth and rational self-interest we will live better, more fulfilling lives. No religion required.

I'm scratching my head here. You and I both know that science says no such thing about the word race (where you imply that since there's no scientifically termed 'human race'--it's a misnomer--then, according to science, there's no such thing as racism). Modern anthropology tends to use the term population vice race, and humans are a species, homo sapiens sapiens.

I can't figure out what point you're trying to make here. You claim that I know that science does not say that race doesn't exist? But, science does say that race doesn't exist.

Andrew Turner wrote:

I say we take a meaningful symbol like a mother-and-child and use it to promote love and caring, because those two values seem hard-wired in the species at the genetic level (between a mother and her offspring) and apply it under a humanist banner. I also say that if we promote individual self-worth and rational self-interest we will live better, more fulfilling lives. No religion required.

Ignoring my offense here (why mother and child? why not father and child?), the fact is that there are plenty of religions which do use the symbol of mother and child to promote love and caring.

I find your post funny because just a few days ago, a highly regarded minister told me that when science and religion are in conflict, he goes with science because religion is about the 'ought' questions.

I don't know where you got your training in theology, but I'm going to assume that he knows a bit more about it than you do.

Instead of laughing and deriding is there any chance you could ANSWER the point?

Should we allow gays to Marry?

Science says..... ?

Quote:

You act like no religion has changed in 4000 years. However, they have - significantly.

I didn't say this

I didn't imply this.

No wonder you think everyone but you is a moron. Any time you're confronted by facts you don't like you resort to "misinterpreting" what everyone else says as moronic.

Christianity is indeed being INFLUENCED by what Desert tribesmen 4,000 years ago thought: Gays are bad. Stone them to death. Your hyper liberal interpretation of christianity is not the be all and end all of the religion.

Darkwing Duck, people like you are one of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian. If you want to give religion a good name, you may wish to change your behaviour.

Since it's likely that some are wondering, no, it was not solely bad Christians that made me turn. It was bad Christians that made me investigate Christianity more deeply. It was that investigation that made me turn.

I'm scratching my head here. You and I both know that science says no such thing about the word race (where you imply that since there's no scientifically termed 'the human race'--it's a misnomer--then, according to science, there's no such thing as racism). Modern anthropology tends to use the term population vice race, and humans are a species, homo sapiens sapiens.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

I can't figure out what point you're trying to make here. You claim that I know that science does not say that race doesn't exist? But, science does say that race doesn't exist.

Science does recognize race in terms of contrasting phenotypes, especially in physical anthropology. Modern science simply tends not to use the word 'race' any longer, and genetics doesn't categorize taxonomic differences as significant enough to create any modal of our hominid subspecies.

Andrew Turner wrote:

I say we take a meaningful symbol like a mother-and-child and use it to promote love and caring, because those two values seem hard-wired in the species at the genetic level (between a mother and her offspring) and apply it under a humanist banner. I also say that if we promote individual self-worth and rational self-interest we will live better, more fulfilling lives. No religion required.

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Ignoring my offense here (why mother and child? why not father and child?), the fact is that there are plenty of religions which do use the symbol of mother and child to promote love and caring.

Naturally, since I wrote 'under a humanist banner' that meant desalinating Madonna and Christ (or pick your fruit from the thousands of belief systems) from the imagery altogether. Mother-and-child was simply a recognizable example that I thought most readers would naturally associate with Madonna-and-child; no offense intended.

Even though religion has changed, learned and improved, in response to those bad things.

It has? When? American Evangelicals are pushing the Uganda "Kill the Gays!" bill.

I walked away from Christianity because it began to sound more and more like the WS movement I grew up around. I've gone from Roman Catholic to Pentecostal to Baptist to Lutheran to Methodist. I grew up around Mormons. Let's not get started on the entire For Profit Movement/Televangelists.

2. If there's no such thing as "human races", then there can be, -by definition-, no such thing as a racist.
3. Yet, racists exists.

This paradox is easy to understand once you realize that science is not the final arbiter of what is real.

Cute, but extremely dishonest. Premise "2" is incorrect; there don't need to BE "races" for there to be racism; there just needs to be a BELIEF in "races."

As a correlary to the above, you probably then want to say that Christianity is a belief in God, and there are Christians, and therefore God must exist. But as with the above example, God Himself need not exist for there to be people worshipping Him; only a BELIEF in God needs to exist.

Anthropology has never accepted that definition of race, but the majority of people are not Anthropologists. Just because something is true in science, doesn't stop the general public from being wrong.

Science has also had a tendency to be bad about communicating about itself and how its ideas actually work. Hence why people think that Social Darwinism is a thing.

Darkwing Duck was one of my favorite childhood cartoons so when I read a lot of your posts I find myself laughing DD. Not because of their content but because the voice I hear in my head arguing the points is his for some reason. Hearing philosophy presented in an exaggerated lispy rasp is apparently endlessly funny to me.

At a public school, she couldn't be fired for being unmarried and pregnant. Because it was a private school she can. I don't see this an example of how schools should or should not be run, I see it as a failure in the morality of this specific example of Christianity.

The school cites her as being a bad example. I would cite the school as being a bad example. Removing support structures from a child's life just as they're about to be born is going to make their whole life more difficult. If they were truly about family values, they would use their power to support that child and ensure that it has the best possible chances in life.

At a public school, she couldn't be fired for being unmarried and pregnant. Because it was a private school she can. I don't see this an example of how schools should or should not be run, I see it as a failure in the morality of this specific example of Christianity.

The school cites her as being a bad example. I would cite the school as being a bad example. Removing support structures from a child's life just as they're about to be born is going to make their whole life more difficult. If they were truly about family values, they would use their power to support that child and ensure that it has the best possible chances in life.

With a union contract neither teacher could be fired for arbitrary reasons. Whether that's being unmarried and pregnant or having Facebook pictures the administration doesn't approve of. Unless it's specified in the contract, in which case you'd know about it up front.

And if you wanted to fight it, you'd have representation and a process to go through.

The specific reason she was fired is a failure of morality for that school. The fact she can be fired at the whim of the administrator is because there's no union.